RCU Forums - View Single Post - Flying Fields Lost and Why
View Single Post
Old 12-08-2009 | 06:53 PM
  #22  
cj_rumley
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Aguanga, CA
Default RE: Flying Fields Lost and Why


ORIGINAL: bradpaul

I agree and therein lies the ''Catch 22''........... If the AMA made the focus of the Parkflyer program to be the obtaining and keeping of Parkflyer sites, there would be thread after thread here about the evil plot of AMA trying to take control of Parkflyers..........

I wasn't referring specifically to AMA PPP members, nor even giving them just due I suppose, as there are only about 2,500 of them (and 3 clubs to support them last I heard). I think that program has tanked, and frankly would assign to it a DNR order.
I was thinking about the 40,000 to 70,000 'full fare' AMA members that don't belong to clubs (pick a number between, based the cred of the sources that have provided data).
They are the forgotten members of AMA, sad because AMA would not be a viable organization without them. Frankly, I was encouraged about your prior posting, as I thought "finally, somebody else recognizes their very existence, and apparently cares." I have a couple of notions about why AMA should care:

1) They subsidize the site owner's insurance that clubs are very dependent on, yet get no benefit of it themselves.

2) Their flying sites, while probably more tenuous than club sites as you seem to allude, are the spawning grounds for new modelers that represent the majority of the potential member pool that AMA has to recruit from.

More reasons stirring in my head, but that's enuf for starters. If I seemed biased, that is true so let's put that issue to rest. I have one foot in each camp.

Cletus